On 1/25/2017 5:24 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:13:32PM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: >> Hi Tiwei, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bie, Tiwei >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:17 AM >>> To: Lu, Wenzhuo >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:39:22AM +0800, Wenzhuo Lu wrote: >>>> It'not appropriate to call rte_eth_dev_info_get in PMD, as >>>> rte_eth_dev_info_get need to get info from PMD. >>>> Remove rte_eth_dev_info_get from PMD code and get the info directly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 144 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c >>>> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c >>>> index 64ce55a..f14a68b 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c >>>> @@ -4401,17 +4401,17 @@ static int >>> ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev, >>>> int rar_entry; >>>> uint8_t *new_mac = (uint8_t *)(mac_addr); >>>> struct rte_eth_dev *dev; >>>> - struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info; >>>> + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev; >>>> >>>> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port, -ENODEV); >>>> >>>> dev = &rte_eth_devices[port]; >>>> - rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info); >>>> + pci_dev = IXGBE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev); >>>> >>>> - if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev_info.driver_name) != 0) >>>> + if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev->data->drv_name)) >>>> return -ENOTSUP; >>>> >>> >>> The return value of is_ixgbe_pmd() is not boolean (actually I think it >>> should be >>> based on its name). If we omit the comparison with 0, the code looks weird. >>> It >>> looks like it'll return -ENOTSUP if the port's driver is ixgbe PMD. >> >> Yes, it’s weird. But what makes it weird is not the missing comparison but >> the function name. >> Better changing it to ixgbe_pmd_check. How about it? >> > > Yeah, I also prefer to change the helper function itself. But I'm not > good at the naming. I'd like to hear others' opinion. :-)
Agree that it looks wrong without 0 comparison. Helper function is checking if the given port is an ixgbe port or not, unfortunately you need to this for PMD specific APIs. So What about is_device_supported(), I agree it is better if it returns bool, and I also think it is better if it gets the rte_eth_dev as input parameter, validating port based on name is API internal knowledge. Also instead of name comparison against fixed string, it can be eth_dev->driver->pci_drv.name against driver->name. This makes function more generic, and perhaps this helper function can be moved into ethdev layer, later. For this function needs to get both eth_dev and rte_driver as argument. > > Best regards, > Tiwei Bie >
